Don't ask don't tell getting closer to being a footnote in history

  • Thread starter Thread starter mikdavi84
  • Start date Start date
Which is for the best for our society at this point in time.

Hopefully, we've evolved past the ignorant bigotry that necessitated 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' in the first place.
 
it's not even about whether someone is a good or bad person, or if they do things that are disgusting. I think for me it's more about having some fundamental things in common. for me, if someone is attracted to men, that's female; if that person is a man, I don't like it. it doesn't mean I don't like THEM or that I don't think they are a cool person. But it does mean I don't feel the same camaraderie that I would otherwise.
 
I'm not trolling, if the military does its job better without gingers then keep them out.
 
if it came down to the person you believed you would work the best with, more power to you.
 
So your gut reaction wouldn't give you time to think about who the best shot is, but it would give you time to differentiate between straight and gay soldiers?
 
Why? If you're in the military don't you have a more immediate sense of how you would react to fighting with a gay person? And since you'll be doing the shooting, doesn't your opinion count more than someone who is only being shot at?
 
I may be unintelligent but then so maybe are others more learned than I........
Psychological concerns

The disruption of a combat unit's esprit de corps is cited as another reason for women to be banned from front-line combat situations. Indeed, many soldiers have stated that they could not trust a woman to perform her duties in a place where trusting their fellow soldier would be critical.[2][6][7] There is a secondary concern that romantic relationships between men and women on the front lines could disrupt a unit's fighting capability and a fear that a high number of women would deliberately become pregnant in order to escape combat duties.[8][9] In the British Army, which continues to bar women from serving in infantry-roled units, all recruits joining to fill infantry vacancies partake in a separate training program called the Combat Infantryman's Course.


So is it very hard for an intelligent person to assume the same concerns would arise w/ queers? yes i said queers..as i refuse to conform to a small minority of the population's definition of their personal choice as being "gay"
 
like I said, if you're enough of an idiot to let your personal feelings toward what someone else in your unit does in their off time distract you, you deserve to get killed in combat.
 
90% of the military is going to get drummed out for conduct unbecoming of an officer by this logic.

I mean, seriously. Try a little bit.
 
it depends. Do I think that losing the translator was less of a problem than the personal views of other service members? Probably not. Do I think it could be? Sure, depending on the circumstances. Do I think it could be for other jobs? Absolutely.

OTOH, if that translator openly flaunted the rules, then maybe that's a bigger problem than his sexual orientation
 
I don't want to disallow any emotions. You're the one saying our military should be segregated by race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. in the name of providing "emotional comfort" to the bigots within the military.

I on the other hand simply want to allow people to not have to lie about themselves in the military.
 
No, they should not have reduced PT requirements. Just like gays should have to meet all the same standards as straight soldiers.

I'm not asking for the gays to get special treatment, I'm asking for them to get EQUAL treatment. i.e., the ability to be as open about their sexual preference in conversation with peers as heterosexual soldiers can be.

Now, IMO that should be "not at all." I don't think it should be standard practice in the military to drum up the macho factor or whatever by talking about all the bitches you've fucked or whatever.

But realistically soldiers will have those conversations, so I don't think a gay soldier should be kicked out of the military for having that conversation while a straight soldier is basically rewarded for those conversations as "being part of the team" or "building camaraderie" or whatever.
 
exactly. and the only reason women have different PT standards is because there are actual legitimate physical differences between your average man and your average woman.
 
Again, I'm struggling with understanding how personal taste is a matter of "knowing more". Please explain to me how General Petraeus knows that BoomBoomBoy doesn't have a personal opinion of his own?
 
Should I be suprised that you don't have any appreciation or respect for other peoples' taste and the type of conversations they have on their own free time?

Because it's only the homophobes who are like that
 
So basically you're admitting that you stereotype all gay men as this:

[y]G_Yu-aYovwU[/y]

You DO realize there are plenty of gay men that aren't twinks, right? And further, you DO realize that someone's personal demeanor has absolutely nothing to do with their ability to fire a gun and kill someone, right?

Gays can be gun lovers too. Gays can also be homicidal maniacs. The only thing that makes gay people "gay" is the fact that they enjoy sexual partners of the same gender. It has no bearing on anything else.

I guess this is a long roundabout way of saying that yes, allowing the openly gay to join our military can absolutely improve its warfighting ability because for all you know the next great military tactician might be a flaming homosexual.
 
Back
Top